River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1887-12-08
A VALID STATUTE.

The ConstitutionaIIty of the Kansas
Liquor Law Affirmed by the United
States supreme Court-No COmpensa-
ton for Property Rendered Worthless.
WASHINGTON Dec. 7.-Justice Harlan de-
livered the opinion of the Supreme Court
Monday in the two sO-called prohibit on
cases of Joseph Mulger. plaintiff in error,
VS. The State of Kansas, and in the case of
the State of Kansas vs. Herman Ziebold
and others, affirming the Judgment OF the
lower court in the two Mulgar cases. and
reversing the Judgment in the Zlebold
case The effect of this opinion
is to declare valid the prohibition
laws of the state of Kansas, and is, OF
course, a victory for the Prohibitionists
The court said that the case came up under
the laws of Kansas declaring the mainte-
nance of a building for the manufacture
and sale ofintoxicants a misdemeanor. Il
was contended that this law was unconsti-
tutional because it abridged the rights of
citizsns to property without due process OF
law, the building used As a brewery being
of little value for any other purpose
Justice Harlan said it had been held re-
peatedly that the right of State TO regu-
late the sale of liquor did not invade the
constitutional rights of the citizen 1t was
commended, however, he said, that no State
Legislature had a right to prohibit any per-
son from manufacturing liquor for his own
use or for export, for the reason that it was
an invasion on the personal liberty in.
herent in citizens II must be OBJ
served, however, he said, that the right to
manufacture drink tor ones own use was
subject to the restriction that it should not
injuriously affect the public. The right TO
determine what was injurious had TO exist
somewhere, and the right of determining
what measures were necessary for the pres
ervatiOn of the public morals, health and
safety had heretofore been vested in tire
States by the constitutional right given
them under the police power to regulate
their own internal concerns While this
police power could not be abused and must
only be exercised for objects OF real merit.
this court would certainly not say that the
liquor traffic was not one which the State
could lawfully prohibit, because il was well
known that the abuse of intOxicants was
productive OF pauperism and crime
The next ground of contention, the Jus.
tice said, was that the breweries had been
erected prior 10 the passage o. the prohibit
ton law, and as they We're of little use ex-
cept for breveFies. their property was
taken without due process of law in
violation of the constitution But al
ment, he held, was subject to the Obliga-
ton that it should not be used so
as to injuriOusly affect the rights of the
community, and thereby become nuisance.
The State Of Kansas had right TO prohibit
the liquor traffic. II did not thereby take
away the property OF brewers It simply
abateO nuisance The property was not
taken away from its owners; they were
only prohibited from using it for a specific
purpose, which the Legislature declared to
be injurious to the community.
Justice Field concurred in the opinion so far
as it related 20 the two cases in which the State
OF Kansas was defendant, but dissented as %
the case OF the State OF Kansas vs.. lie
bold. He agreed, he SAID 10 so
much Of the opinion as sustalns the validity
OF the act Of Kansas prohibiting the
sale Of intoyicants which are manufactured
in the S.ste after the passage OF the ACT He
was not prepared, however. 70 say that the pro-
hibition Of the manufacture Of such liquors, IL
intended for expectation, can be sustained, nor
that the State can forbid the sale under proper
regulations for the protection 81 the health
and morals Of the people Of any article
which Congress may authorize 20 be imported
He was not ready 20 admit that New York or
any other coast State can thus defeat an act
OF Congress. Neither could re concur IN the
validity Of the thirteenth section OF the Pro
hibifion act OF Kansas, because he believed
Il authorised the destruction Of property
without due process Of law. He could not
see upon what principle the Legisla-
ture. after closing the brewery, can order
the destruction Of liquor, which II admits may
be valuable for medical or mechanical pur-
poses; nor could he see why the protection Of
the morals OF the State required the destruc-
ton Of bottles and other utensils after the
liquor had been enptied from them
TOPEKA, Kan. Dec. The decision OF the
United States Supreme Court sustaining
the prohibitOry laws of this State is con-
ceded ON all sides to be great victory for
prohibition, and Is received with quite gen.
eral satisfaction in this city, which is the
stronghold of the FrohibitiOnists
The anti Prohibitionists say they had
little hope OF a decision In their favor,
and that they do not desire 70 defeat
prohibition in this way. They believe the
law viii become so obnoxious that the peo.
pie themselves viii nullify IL Whether the
decision Of the Supreme Court had been for
or against it would have had but little ef-
feet on prohibition in Kansas for the reason
that there are brit four breweries in Kan
sas now being operated and the state
Of Kansas could aud would have compen-
stated the owners for whatever loss tney
would hive sustained had the decis on been
agains. prohibition The question was OF
more importance TO other States IN the
Union than TO Kansas ProhiOitionists
pr acticaIly end I'd the struggle for prohibit
ton in Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and
many other States N the Union where there
are millions OF dollar invested u breweries
ana disuuerisA